A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close. Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .---
This is not enough. To know string theory, as it is usually presented in modern, is not to really know anything. You need to learn the historical literature, which is next to impossible, because it is so dated.
@@gamerdio2503 Haha! I know it was a joke, but I also know people will start to learn string theory after reading the comments here, and I have to warn them about the issues! The issue is that the boostrap ideas are missing. To learn those, you need to go WAY back in time.
alternative title: origin story of how Andrew Dotson discovered a Theory of Everything. in all seriousness though, i respect you're doing this. String theory was one of the first things I heard about when I got interested in physics and astronomy, and I was so enthusiastic and fascinated about the topic. that was years ago, and now these days im constantly stressed with classes, research, etc. and miss feeling that joy. I think you just motivated me to start learning it again for fun, as a side hobby.
Alternative title: conquering my biggest academic comedy. Jokes aside, your videos have been very inspiring and please keep producing these quality contents.
Just found out that I've got into university to study physics and philosophy in October at the University of Oxford. Thanks for all your videos for encouraging me to apply!!
Well, String Theory has its origins in nuclear physics, since it started as a possible description of the strong interaction (but QCD turned out better). In addition, in the area of heavy ion collisions, there is some interest in the use of holography, AdS-CFT correspondence and other stuff, to develop phenomenological models. Therefore, if you're a nuclear/particle physicist, ST is not as disconnected as you might think. So do it!
This is great man. I still remember being a young teen attending an interview with a physicist (carlo rovelli), asking about the difference between string theory and loop quantum gravity (as if i knew anything about either one), and having the whole crowd laugh as my question was read out loud. I guess there’s no time limit to learn anything. I’m finally starting my journey as a phys major this fall and im looking forward to it all - def gonna have to binge your channel.
Love it!! I first heard of string theory through Brian Greene's series, The Elegant Universe, about 15 years ago (which means I must have been about 7 😅). Fast forward to now, I'm nearly done my undergrad in physics and astronomy, with a little GR and a little particle physics under my belt. Looking forward to your videos on string theory!!
@@babyyoda9943 no one has math skills, no one was born knowing algebra, even einstien or newton, they all had to learn it, and you can too!! math is actually a lot like a physical skill like idk football or basket ball, the more you do it, the better you get at it. and your problem solving skills are like lifting weights, the more you lift weights, the heavier the weights you can lift like that the more problems you think about and solve, the harder the problems you can solve. the people who are really good at math are just normal people who really enjoy mathematics, because the more you enjoy something, the more you do it, and the more you do it, the better you get at it. it's actually not that difficult to enjoy and love math, math is beautiful. i like this line from the movie good will hunting "most people never get to see how brilliant they can be, they dont find teachers that believe in them, so they get convinced that they're stupid" so you just need to realize the beauty of math and you'll start to realize that math is actually fun! and you'll start to do it more and more and before you know it you'll be amazing at mathematics. also who knows? you might be the one to finally solve quantum gravity ;) also btw the stuff you learn at highschool is really really different from actual mathematics, actual math is super fun and really cool, also schools really dont do a good job at teaching math so dont it's not your fault.
As a researcher in string theory and a huge fan of your channel I would be stoked to have a chat about it if you want :D but it's awesome that David gave you the thumbs up! I admire him so much.
@@unbiunium I work on string theory with broken supersymmetry. There are many novel features that show up and it appears to be a necessary step to connect the theory with more realistic phenomenology! I'm almost done writing a paper where I describe how the theory seems to recover consistency despite instabilities of the vacuum (nice username, btw) :)
@@mastershooter64 some people are, but it only works for a very small fraction of the theory. For the most part the theory is still in its infancy, in the sense that there are a number of partial formulations that are (or can be made) perfectly rigorous, but don't cover the whole physics. A fully complete, global picture of string theory is not yet within reach with respect to any standard of rigour, but the progress that has been made is impressive compared to the expectations that I would've had personally.
@@Rubbergnome "the theory is still in it's infancy" that's reassuring, that means with more work we'll finally crack quantum gravity! I'm super interested in quantum gravtiy in general and string theory specifically, (plus i enjoy mathematics lol) what math is used in string theory that's already not used in GR and QFT?
There is a saying. "String theory is the beginning of the end, it means giving up.". I am only kidding of course, respect to those who attempt it, and in your case, luckily there is plenty beard there to pull on when needed. :)
Been watching for awhile now, seeing your progression from an undergrad student to now learning arguably the most complex thing known to man really inspires me to pursue physics myself at uni. Keep up the amazing content🤜
Mathematical Physics graduate student here. I think learning string theory is important to complete one's point of view on it - I took an introductory course on it which clarified a few misconceptions. That being said I must say string theory still comes to me as a mathematical theory rather than a physical one since it's unfalsifiable and seemingly always will be; however, I think it's great to learn because of the new tools from there that you can use outside of the scope of string theory. Working on quantum Riemannian geometry and other alternatives to quantum gravity like LQG, I think we can all learn from the various approaches to different kinds of problems. All in all, I think you'll really enjoy string theory - if not because it's useful for your research, just because it's nice to see different kinds of problem-solving approaches. Can't wait to follow the series of videos you'll make on it :)
Calling something "unfalsifiable" sounds a little strong for something which _does_ make several testable predictions which are only out of reach of current experimental technology. Even then, just of the top of my head, AdS/QCD predicts properties of quark-gluon plasma correctly; an often overlooked result of string theory is that it proves that there are no continuous spin representations in Wigner's classification for massless particles (which has to be posited independently in QFT), etc.
@@twistedsector from what ik it does make predictions of the existence of SUSY particles but makes zero predictions about how they will be like ie how much energy they will have (I think that has to do with the fact that 10^150 possible calabi yau manifolds may represent the curled up dimensions and we have no way of knowing which one is our universe- which is MOSNTROUSLY bigger than the number of atoms in our universe which is 10^73 so I am not sure if this problem can even be solved) So if we haven't found a particle yet we could just say that we aren't looking at high enough energies yet. Hence unfalsifiable.
@@twistedsectorString theory does make testable predictions, just like SUSY does - but one can always shift parameter space and go to higher energies, which makes it unfalsifiable Testable does not mean falsifiable ;)
@@sionae1967 There's a limit to how high you can shift particles. With a Planck energy accelerator, you can't help but verify or falsify string theory. It's totally verifiable/testable, it's just out of reach of any practical experiment today.
I am currently taking up a course on diff. geo. and topology, and have covered up bosonic strings. What I've followed so far: QFT: 1. A Modern Introduction to Quantum Field Theory by Michele Maggiore (MM) (primary) 2. Peskin's QFT (reference) 3. Schwartz's book on QFT and SM (reference) 3. Might follow Weinberg and Langacker once I'm done with MM's book which is probably going to be never because I'm procrastinating. Strings: 1. A first course in string theory by Barton Zwiebach (primary) 2. Might read Polchinski and SGW next semester if I can get the pre-reqs settled. GR: 1. Initially B. Schutz first course on GR. 2. Then lectures on GTR by Emil Akhmedov. 3. Have referred to Weinberg before but will read it properly someday. 4. The famous 'Large-scale structure of spacetime' is in list lol (big talks from a small nut like me). Differential Geometry and Topology: 1. Lectures on advanced mathematical methods for Physicists by Mukhi and Mukunda (primary). 2. Nakahara (reference). 3. Some other books are in list might read if I survive masters. Additionally you might need some stuff on conformal field theory, for which there's Rastelli in Stonybrook who's lecture notes can be used. You can refer initially to Polchinski who discusses CFT to some extent. Some idea of complex manifolds might be required? B. Greene's 1997 lecture on YC manifolds can be referred to. But then if you just google up complex manifolds a lot of modern lecture notes can be easily found out. In case you're looking for application of strings to nuclear physics, look up AdS/QCD correspondence. Coincidentally my masters thesis is on this topic :) Also I'm really excited with the possibility of getting a strings lecture from you!
Yay! Glad to see you are learning this amazing subject, especially considering the bad press it often (and frequently misguidedly) receives. For me string dualities blew my mind in particular, so I hope you find them as awesome as I did. Also, as I mentioned in the comments of the community post, the offer is always open if you want a chat with someone who has been there before :-)
Yessssssss! Man, this is going to be great. I'm finishing up my masters in mathematics and thinking about doing a PhD (I'm a student at IMPA, so under normal circumstances this is a natural progression). The only catch is that I'd like to study and do research in theoretical physics, not math! I've always wondered how much of string theory I could pick up with 0 knowledge of physics, but a decently strong foundation in math (big fan of Riemannian Geometry, of course). This has me really excited! Awesome, truly so! btw, name's André, which is just Andrew in Portuguese, so hi
10 years after, RU-vidr finds solution to problem Einsten couldn't, just kidding but you know what I mean. A super fucking big bunch of good wishes to Andrew on starting this and requests for giving updates on it, Good Luck!
Good luck! I have two recommendations if you’re interested. 1. Study S-matrix theory. This is the origin of string theory. Gribov’s The theory of complex angular momentum and the Analytic S-matrix by Olive et al are great resources. This should give you the intuition for string theory. It’s ultimately an S-matrix theory and not a quantum field theory. 2. How string theory is defined however is by a 2D conformal field theory. This remains the pillar for calculation for perturbative string theory. So you should study 2D CFT. The yellow book of conformal field theory is the main resource. It’s massive so you only need parts of it.
Ohhhhh so that’s what string theory is! Finally, someone explains it in layman’s terms. Math major here, and I just want to wish you the best of luck going into a very hard branch of studies! Have fun!
Your point about the lack of overlap between physicists who use GR and physicists who use QFT is something i’ve noticed myself, and also why i am targeting my research into theoretical nuclear astrophysics which uses both!
Ayyyy something I didn't really think you'd be doing, but finally! I also used Tong's chapter 4 as an introduction to CFTs, then moved on to the Yellow book.
There's also a sort of introduction to string theory by Lenoard Susskind, which is a great lecture series on the substance of the topic. Looking forward to watching you (and also hopefully me) learning the topic.
Kudos for the good motivation. I've only recently tried, as a layman, to get a basic understanding of the status of string theory in the academic community, and most people's arguments (whether for or against) seem little more than a sea of unsubstantiated opinions and vague gestures towards the AdS/CFT correspondence. I hope your studies are fruitful!
You made my day with a fresh Andrew Dotson video😃 Yes I think your reasoning behind starting with string theory is ideal and well justified. I wish I can be someone of your intellect, reasoning and level of personality some day.😁
Can you make a video about those situations where GR and QM `conflicts'? I'm not trained in physics so the only material/media I consume about GR+QM are targeted for laypersons. Those media often mention that in cases where you're dealing with (small) scales where QM is applied but you're also dealing with objects with lots of mass (where GR is applied), QM and GR conflicts. Those media won't go into the details of those situations and how exactly does QM conflicts with GR in those situations.
Sean Carroll has a bunch of videos on and talked about it a million times on his podcast. Also there on many popular books on the subject. There is a link to the book resources in my channel description
I can add a somewhat tenuous point to learning bizarre or other unrelated theories: sometimes having that knowledge allows you to make leaps of insight in your own field that no one would make. I had to take an advanced course in random graph theory in my undergrad, which at the surface is totally unrelated to my world (and debatably a little outdated), but I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been able to wrap my head around a concept because of some of the random bits I learned in that class. Everyone looks at me funny for making the analogy, but it’s wound up being a highly useful tool, even if I don’t directly use it.
im excited for you man! i’m in my last year of undergrad studies going for an eventual masters in computational geometry and while i still have time to, i’ve been living my daily life driven by extreme curiosity and love for learning. i know it’s not a sustainable long-term way to spend my time since it’s so unfocused currently, but i think it’s been the most fun and fulfilling time of my life so far and i want to be able to do what you’re doing in the future. i wanna be able to deep dive into topics that might be only tangentially related to my field just because i want to. i’ll be along for the ride!
Learning String Theory aka working through Polchinski for a few years as an initiation rite followed by "research" on something completely different which is even less connected to physics, the experimental science.
Hey this video came just as i just began studying conformal fied theory! Good luck and have fun and dont worry if you dont get it the first time, this is my (alot)th time revisiting CFT and i finally understood the basics. You might be keen in CFT too since its closely related, and i am also thinking of making some videos on cft soon :D
I'm interested in string theory for the mathematics involved. I'm an undergrad student studying engineering and physics with gravity, spacetime, energy, matter, and the transference of momentum at the core of my studies. Getting an understanding of the mathematics that's existed since the release of Star Wars might provide some insight into my own research.
Nice shirt! I am studying physics at the University of Memphis and have been watching your videos for sometime. I really enjoy your content. Keep up the good work!
I wanted to make the point that you should define what learning string theory means, but I assume from the end statements that it means to understand Tong’s notes to some degree. Regardless of anyone’s opinion on string theory, the content of those notes is quite good, with a lot of ramifications into important tools such as CFT and concepts such as anomalies.
Resource recommendation: Gribov , The Theory of Complex Angular Momentum (1969) , along with any 1960s book on Regge pole Hadron phenomenology. The theory can't be understood without the bootstrap, really. You need to learn S-matrix ideas. Without that, you won't get anything straight.
LOL. As somebody who does research in string theory. I'm happy that you're taking a stroll around the area to learn this stuff; it gives so many extra ideas for just regular QFT even if you don't accept it as a candidate for a ToE. I'd be happy to join in with you to discuss some aspects if you want to throw back and forth some ideas to learn it better together.
That's the way to go as a physicist IMO. It's not exactly wrong to quote experts when you have no knowledge (noting that it ain't your opinion and can change with the scientific consensus), but it's always better to learn it yourself and form your opinion, especially if you have the chance to do so
Does anyone remember the time where Andrew Dotson had 100k subs and said that he didn’t really want his community to grow too much? Good times(: glad he loves us all equally.
I was the 1st comment…but I took too long to post. So now I’m 2nd 😩. No longer in the basement! ~ Love, Mom 💕 **correction - I took so long I was 13th**
This happens with most theoretical particle physicists I know. And I’m the end they either work on GUTs or research against a wall for several decades. It’s a trap, don’t do it. Go into condensed matter. It’s way more forgiving and interesting since effects can be verified in 10 years most of the time.
@@unbiunium That’s the reason I’m in theory haha. Also, I actually do many body systems with strong correlations which is not bound by any material per se. But for real, CM and optics is rn the best thing to do (if not rigorous model building in mathematical physics). But Particle Physics (as much as I love it in the past), is really not in a good position rn
Disappointed that you aren't learning it to understand the memes better. Keeping that aside, all the best! Will follow this series hoping to learn a thing or two.
Dear Andrew, I wish you the best of luck on your journey. Wanting to develop your own opinion on the subject rather than parroting someone else's is a good enough reason. I'd stress that string theory, like all other approaches to quantum gravity, faces deep conceptual problems about the nature of space-time and the scientific method (i.e., how do we know that a mathematical toy model is "physical" if we have no way of tying it back to empirical data?) I strongly suggest you take a look at Richard Dawid's String Theory and the Scientific Method. Dawid is a string theorist turned philosopher of science and his reflections of what string theory implies to the scientific enterprise as a whole are of great value. Best of luck!
I also heard about string theory prpbably 10 ish years ago. I did start out with Hawking in physics but then I ran across Professor Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos and then read another book of his, the Hidden Reality. And I think those are what exposed me to it first.
I'm also really exited about learning String Theory, I'm soon to be a bioinformatician but if I can recall I had like 1 year of physics in high school. Something about car crashes and jumping off tall buildings. Pretty dark class now that I think of it.
I often like spending time learning something difficult. Studying for electrical engineer and did all quantum courses my university had to offer. I want to learn quantum field theory, even though I will propably be designing circuitry :D
At about 4:05 you mention how you want to be able to come to your own opinion on the topic and I’ve never had someone so eloquently explain to me why I wanted to study physics as well 😩😩😂
Physics third year subjects at my uni have a bad 1st semester to 2nd semester course ratio so you basically take QFT and GR together in the final year of bachelors if you don't want to have a whole bunch of labs.
I will be looking forward to your videos about string theory. I always wanted to learn it too. Haven't got there yet. I hope you show all the details and not just some overview. There's little to no real content on step by step calculations of really difficult stuff. It would be quality if you showed this.
